Zimbabwe at the crossroads: The unheard debate

WHILE Zimbabwe now finds itself at the crossroads, it is ironic that the conversations taking place about the future of the country may not be different from the conversations that were taking place during the pre-independence era.
During the anti-colonial struggle, the conversations were focusing on political issues and in particular how efficiently to remove Ian Smith as Prime Minister of Zimbabwe and replacing him with a democratically elected leader. It was evident to all that unless the majority of the population was given the right to elect their own leaders, the political and economic crisis facing Rhodesia was not going to end.
The conversations were accordingly restricted to regime change and Smith became the personification of the problem and his removal energized the proponents of change. With respect to the economic question, conversations were mainly informed by a socialist ideology largely because the financial and logistical support for the struggle was provided by socialist countries.
Among Zimbabweans, the debate regarding the broader post-colonial economic and ideological challenges to be addressed in order to provide hope and promise to the majority of the population was missing.
For the crafty liberation struggle practitioners, the lack of debate was convenient as it provided an avenue to hijack the post-colonial state using a populist agenda without affording the people an opportunity to openly debate the critical governance and economic issues. What has been striking is that the lack of debate has become institutionalized and has come to characterize the contemporary Zimbabwean political scene leading to the widely held view that while Zimbabweans are generally regarded as hard working and intelligent people, they appear helpless in the face of a humanly induced economic and political nightmare.
The world has been surprised that a people who twenty six years ago were distinguished architects of their own liberation against an organized and economically strong regime, has now been transformed into a nation that now pins its hope on the retirement of one man. If anything, the conversations in Zimbabwe are not about the kind of society the country should be but regrettably about Mugabe and who should be his replacement. Among the political actors, the preoccupation is on who will be in the State House forgetting about the interests of the people up and down the country.
The implications of a misplaced and misguided conversation of the heritage of a nation cannot be overstated. If one critically examines the cause of the Asian economic miracle and the emergence of the newly industrialized countries in the post-Second World War era, one finds that the quality and content of the conversations that informed the economic policies and political issues were dramatically different from the kind of conversations taking place in Zimbabwe. The focus in Zimbabwe, like many African countries, is on identifying a leader and not on constructing a foundation for a society that will not tolerate the imprisonment of the majority to failed programs and bankrupt ideologies.
The emergence of characters like Professor Jonathan Moyo and Dr Gideon Gono to fill the conversation gaps should not be surprising because of the context and content of the conversation taking place, and the kind of information that citizens are polluted with, as a basis of making choices. There are people who genuinely believe that it is the leaders who are single-handedly culpable for the economic meltdown and yet forget that the only power that people who do not have power have is the power to organize. Such organization must be guided by quality conversations informed by facts. I have chosen to focus my intervention of economic issues in the knowledge that the Zimbabwean space has been polluted with political issues where individuals without any content have prostituted Robert Mugabe’s name to make political careers for themselves at the expense of the majority.
If one accepts that Zimbabwe is at the crossroads, then it is important that those privileged to know better use their knowledge to improve the general literacy of citizens not as a means to State House but as a necessary nation building experiment. We should accept that Mugabe is the only black Zimbabwean to have risen to the position of President and over the past twenty six years he may have been the loneliest person in Zimbabwe with no-one to talk to about what it means to be a President.
The situation is no different in the private sector for any first generation office holder who faces the same challenges where your friends and family may not fully comprehend the enormous obligations of being the first in anything. If we accept that Mugabe has been talking to himself and perhaps to foreign heads of state for the longest time in Zimbabwe about what it means to be a President of a population where 99% of the people continue to blame less than 1% of the population for lack of progress, then we can understand the magnitude of the dilemma.
The construction of our democracies where the majority vote and the minority govern does not lend itself to a participatory framework whereby citizens can easily recall their leaders when there is evidence that their development and progress is arrested by policies and programs that having nothing to do with poverty alleviation and job creation but to entrench the powerful. We need also to appreciate that countries only get the leaders they deserve because no President can ever assume office through an examination but rather he/she is a product of the choices made by the governed. In a situation where issues are distorted and the leaders may also be ignorant of their responsibilities, it is incumbent upon us to elevate the conversations so that those who find themselves in wrong jobs even after twenty six years of rule can find it in themselves to step aside in the national interest.
It may be naïve to assume that political leaders will behave differently from private sector leaders who in the face of a collapsing enterprise may not make the right choices for the company but would rather focus on their personal interests. It is difficult to locate individuals in history who have voluntarily stepped aside even in the face of evidence that their actions may be responsible for undermining the interests of the institutions they claim to be serving and protecting. I believe that it is only when the quality of conversations is improved that interests begin to be defined and the state or company becomes the amalgamation of stakeholder interests rather than the CEO/President’s view of the world.
When one looks carefully at the Zimbabwean crisis, it is not difficult to observe that President Mugabe may not have had any honest conversation with his colleagues over the last twenty years to give him reason to exit. We have seen people make much out of the alleged disagreements between Finance Minister Herbert Murerwa and Gono about economic policies and yet no one has questioned why, if Murerwa is a man of principle, he will remain in the cockpit of a plane that has lost direction without looking for a parachute.
In fact, apart from Moyo, who was desperate to have a seat in Parliament in anticipation that his co-conspirators would have the courage to join the coup, we have not seen anyone leaving Zanu PF to join the opposition. Why then would we be convinced that if there is change of leadership in Zanu PF, the management of the economy will significantly change for the better? Even with respect to the opposition, do we get a sense of what kind of society they are advocating and if there was clarity why would it not be sensible for Zanu PF to switch parties? Is there something we do not know about the Zimbabwean society and its people that needs to be exposed in order to explain why we should assume that Gono is acting alone when the people who are exposed most i.e. Zanu PF members appear to be helpless?
Having accepted that Mugabe is the first black person in modern day Zimbabwe to have used the State House as his address, it is important that we engage in conversations on what kind of leader should use the address. It is equally important that the governed also appreciate that a leader who emerges from the blind may not have the eyes to see better than the people he purports to represent. In supposedly democratic society like Zimbabwe, it is incumbent upon citizens to know what to expect from their leaders and the limitations imposed by ignorance. Some may argue that the destiny of any nation is written by its leaders without appreciating the unique circumstances in which African leaders find themselves and the attitude they develop against those who may have different views about governance. The centralization of power becomes a natural development where a leader is misled by his own people who may not know any better that he alone has all the answers against a background where such leaders were never adequately prepared to assume such high offices.
I have often said that Old Mutual was not started by old people but the people who created the institution were clear that it would outlive them and also that it would be sustainable. However, the Zimbabwean people were never clear on what kind of New Zimbabwe they needed to address the colonial legacy while providing promise to its citizens leading to the confusion that the country now faces where the leadership has abdicated and unelected people like Gono have assumed power and yet are not accountable to the people.
For observers who continue to watch the unfolding drama in Zimbabwe, they will not have been surprised by the actions of Gono in Matabeleland when he committed RBZ funds to the Zambezi Water Project without even considering the need to get the approval of his board. Gono is now Mr Fix It and yet he is using public funds and the people who benefit from such fragrant abuse of power cheer him without even thinking of the implications on democracy and governance. Yes, some will argue what choices does Zimbabwe have, but it is ironic that even so-called intellectuals like Moyo would not find it absurd where a Central Bank governor goes on a road show in the country dealing with the public when the role of any central bank is nothing different from a wholesaler.
The central bank should be dealing with banks who are its clients and then the banks would then deal with the retail public. However, in the Gonomics era, the central bank has now been converted into a pedestrian institution and the behavior of Gono is now no different from the late great leader of North Korea and his son, where the state is personalized and the leader provides on-the-spot guidance and has a random-walk-budgeting-process. Is it acceptable for the resources of the country to be allocated in the manner in which Gono is behaving? Where is the voice of Parliament? Why is Moyo silent and yet vocal on Mugabe? Do people of Zimbabwe deserve any better explanation of what has gone wrong in Zimbabwe to create a monster that would make rights privileges and trample upon citizens’ rights with impunity and yet even the opposition parties continue to focus their conversations on who should be the leader when the people need to adequately informed of their rights?
In the interests of broadening and deepening the conversations that are required by Zimbabwe in making the rights choices to move forward, I thought it would be useful to benefit the larger audience from the feedback that I continue to receive on my articles. I quote below one such response to my article of last week on the RBZ v Asset Managers:
I have read some of your articles (in fact all of them) and I am impressed by the kind of information you are giving the readership of NewZim and would encourage you to continue. What amazes me most is the lack of information Zimbabweans have about what is going on in their backyard. It would help us, your readers, if you could get the story from other 'so called' fugitives so we get to hear their story.
For example if Mthuli Ncube is a criminal why is appointed director of Wits Business School -- one of the most respected institutions on the continent and even on the world stage? I found that puzzling. The media situation is Zim is a total blackout and it was only when I installed a satellite dish that I realised that the majority of people don't have a clue about what is happening in the world, less so in their own country.
Can you please enlighten us on (1) the Tsholothso project? (2) the real motivation for the disastrous land reform programme? (3) the succession battles in Zanu PF? can you give us more background on this matter? (4) ZanuPF/ZAPU unity is that a genuine arrangement or it was forced down Nkomo's throat? Some people feel that Nkomo betrayed the nation by supping with the devil and in the process denying the people an opposition party hence we had to wait almost 15 years before MDC got on the scene. He gave ZANU PF the free ride they wanted to consolidate power. Can you expound on this?
My response: I believe that Prof. Moyo, one of the architects of the Tsholotsho project, has provided his side to the story and the information is publicly available. However, what is not clear is the identity of the economic players whose resources underpinned the project. I have observed in Moyo’s articles that he has not attacked Gono’s policies and you will hardly find any mention of Gono in his articles. The project appears to be founded on the premise that the constitution of Zanu PF virtually gives a veto to the Mashonaland Provinces to decide on who should be a successor to Mugabe.
You may be aware that under the Zanu PF constitution, the country is divided into ten provinces. However, Mashonaland was allocated four provinces i.e. Mashonaland West, Mashonaland Central, Mashonaland East and Harare. Any prospective leader of the party needs at least five provinces to win. It is also important to note that the Presidium of the party comprises four individuals drawn equally from former ZANU and ZAPU. The basis of the Unity Accord was that ZANU would continue to have Mugabe and Muzenda as the President and Vice President while Joshua Nkomo and his deputy became Vice President and National Chairman, respectively.
There was no clarity as to what would happen in terms of succession. The first test occurred when Joshua Nkomo died and his replacement was contested because there were no rules and it emerged that the unity accord was only meant to entrench Mugabe in power and did not provide for a clear succession taking into account the fact that two parties were now one and it was unlikely that any person from Matebeleland could ever rise to the post of Vice President in Zanu PF given the demographics of the country. Given the ambiguity, Nkomo was succeeded by Msika who was not challenged but Msika’s replacement was challenged by Mnangagwa. John Nkomo then won the party election and then became the Chairman. However, when Muzenda died, his replacement became a critical issue in determining the successor to Mugabe.
Whereas Mnangagwa had not received the support of the party for the National Chairmanship on the grounds that the post was meant for a former ZAPU person in the interests of national unity, Moyo and his project partners felt strongly that Mnangagwa being a Karanga should takeover Muzenda’s post. They also felt that it was time to rid the party of the old guard to replace it with a new team that could then fight against MDC. The construction of MDC also gave impetus to the Tsholotsho team to argue that they needed a similar Karanga/Ndebele team in Zanu PF on the basis that the country had had enough of power centralization by one tribe. The team then put the argument that even Mugabe was part of the plot on the basis that during the struggle, it was always the intention that a Karanga would take-over from Mugabe and after Muzenda, there was no other qualified Karanga than Mnangagwa.
The crux of the project is as described above. The project was still born because it could never have succeeded under Zanu PF as they needed the same people (Zezurus) they wished to undermine to succeed. How could a Zezuru support such a project? Equally, the project was misconceived by Moyo in assuming that the old ZAPU was dead and that he was the inheritor of the Matabeleland constituency. Given that another intellectual, Welshman Ncube, was a de facto leader of the region and MDC had proven that ZAPU was essentially a dead institution, Moyo saw himself as Ncube’s counterparty in Zanu PF. They had not counted on Mugabe honouring his end of the bargain to ZAPU that as long as he was not threatened he did mind anyone being his deputy even if it was a frog.
Having benefited from the demise of ZAPU, Mugabe did not wish to alienate his junior and humiliated partners in ZAPU. I think that Moyo and his partners wanted to put Mugabe to the test and naively believed that he would support them. It appears that the project was founded on speculation and some kind of ivory tower analysis that is no different from the discourse taking place in Zimbabwe today. I do not believe that Mugabe was aware of the plot as alleged by Moyo. What is clear is that it is a Herculean task for anyone who is not supported by Mashonaland to be a President of Zanu PF. The assumption that they could influence the Chairmen of the party in Mashonaland to go with Mnangagwa showed the naivety and ignorance of the project leaders. When push came to shove, the real power structure of the party was exposed and the plotters had nowhere to hide.
(2) The real motivation for the disastrous land reform programme?I know you strongly believe in empowerment but I think we can agree that what has happened on the land is a far cry from empowering anyone. It has destroyed the country! You are right that I believe in empowerment but had problems with the motivation, construction and execution of the land reform program. Like the Tsholotsho project, the land reform was not a planned initiative but a reaction and a political ploy to distract attention. My company put this to a test to determine whether the country was serious about an agrarian reform. We invested heavily in agriculture as an attempt to demonstrate that blacks can operate commercially in agriculture thereby diffusing the argument that if you given land to blacks you necessarily will destroy the country. I believed then and still hold the belief that any land reform founded on the state using a national resource for patronage purposes will not succeed. Equally an agrarian reform program underpinned by a confused ideology will not succeed.
Even Tanzania came to the realization that socialism has its own limits. For twenty six years the government failed to provide leadership on the land question and yet would like the world to believe that it is land that has the answers to national problems. To date, the beneficiaries of land have no legal instrument regarding their right to land. Some who had been allocated land covered under bilateral investment agreement are now being asked to relocate after making an investment. Without security of tenure, one is clear on what to expect in terms of success. You may not be aware that a program that I spearheaded in 2000 and was the only significant black response to a chaotic land reform program was nationalized by the government as part of the expropriation of my assets.
I am sure that as we improve our conversations, the real story of my contribution to the land question will be told and people will then judge for themselves. You may be aware that when the land reform program started, the government’s target was to acquire only 5 million hectares of land but with the emergence of MDC the target changed to all land. My company purchased farms that were not on the list for acquisition on the assumption that the government will follow its own stated policies. Long and behold this was arbitrarily changed and my company’s assets were expropriated without any compensation. This is no different to what has happened to Dr. Mthuli Ncube who has lost his investment while being accused of externalization.
(3) the succession battles in Zanu PF? Can you give us more background on this matter?
To the extent that Mujuru is a Zezuru, there is an issue in terms of succession. Some would argue that how can you have Mugabe (Zezuru) and Mujuru become the two most senior members of the party when it is common cause that Mugabe has been at the helm for more than thirty years. According to the constitution of Zanu PF, it is more probable that Mujuru will emerge as the next leader of the party. She already has four of the required six votes in her bag. Masvingo, Manicaland and Midlands, notwithstanding their population, only have three votes and I am not sure where the battles will leave Mnangagwa in the party.
The only construction under which Mnangagwa or anyone from another tribe will succeed is if they are operating outside the party or if there were calls for a constitutional amendment of the party constitution. No-one is calling for an amendment of the constitution of the party and hence I do not see where the Mnangagwa/Mujuru battles are taking place. However, there is another phenomenon that you need to watch i.e. Gono who behaves no differently from any military coup leader, mafia, and pocket book politician in one. You should be watching for any populist who comes from Buhera and has invested heavily in his constituency (that is next to Morgan Tsvangirai's rural home) as a way of demonstrating his credentials. The contest may end up being between Tsvangirai v Gono. The future of Zanu PF may be located outside the party and anything is possible. It is for this reason that Zimbabweans must urgently improve their conversations with a view to detecting the real dangers to the nation building project of a financially strong dictator emerging as the only savior for the country.
(4) I think that the 1987 Unity Accord was meant to entrench the one party state construction that would then benefit one individual. I am sure for example the Pope of Rome will not behave differently in the face of opposition. The Unity Accord has been tested twice before i.e. succession of Joshua Nkomo and Muzenda and in both instances, it was exposed that there were no rules guiding the post-unity dispensation. In fact, the mere fact that there is no explicit definition of how the pact should deal with succession issues is a cause of concern but it appears that the deal was only meant to accommodate the leadership and may not have had anything to do with the interests of both organizations.
Accordingly, the observation by many that ZAPU got a raw deal may be accurate but there may have been no viable choices. You will recall the circumstances that led to Nkomo’s externalization. There may be similarities between how Nkomo was treated and how Makamba, Nyemba, Goromonzi, Zimuto etc have been treated. When it happened to Nkomo, we thought it was a joke and when it happened to Kuruneri, we still thought it was a dream. When are Zimbabweans going to wake up? Yesterday it was Nyagumbo, Mutumbuka, Nkala etc selling cars at controlled prices and losing their careers and nobody ever cared to question the leadership that would create an environment where rules are different for each person. Today we see Impala Platinum, Bindura and other companies cutting deals with the same person that you call a devil.
I have chosen to use the above conversation to help start a new form of dialogue among the people concerned about not only the future of Zimbabwe but the rest of the continent of Africa. We need to continue to interrogate the leadership issue not only because it is the people who ultimately decide on who should lead them but because if there is a literacy vacuum the probability of the majority being taken advantage of by the few who monopolize the knowledge agenda is high.
A country is only as good as the interests that inform it and no power or force can ever substitute the interests of the many who are organized and angry. The only question is who benefits from the ignorance of the many while continuing to confuse them with special purpose initiatives in the form of Project Murambatsina, Sunrise, etc